I went straight to user harm reduction as the north star and tried to bucket features by severity of the problem they solve.
Start by anchoring on TikTok's mission and the dual goals of content moderation: protecting users from harm while enabling free expression. Then propose a prioritization framework that balances risk severity, scale of impact, and strategic alignment, and illustrate it with concrete examples of features. Finally, discuss how you'd measure success and iterate based on data.
Pro tip: Show that you understand the trade-offs between proactive and reactive moderation, and that you'd prioritize features that address high-severity harms first, even if they affect fewer users, because of the outsized reputational and regulatory risk.
Ask clarifying questions to understand the company's priorities, such as regulatory pressures, brand safety, and user growth targets. Establish that the primary goal is to minimize harm while maintaining a positive user experience.
Break down the problem into categories: content types (e.g., video, comments, live), harm types (e.g., violence, hate speech, misinformation), and user segments (e.g., creators, viewers, advertisers). This helps in assessing the scope and urgency of each area.
Use a framework like RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) or a risk-based matrix (severity vs. likelihood) to score features. For TikTok, weight severity heavily due to regulatory and safety risks, and consider the scale of impact given the platform's size.
Propose metrics such as reduction in harmful content prevalence, response time, appeal overturn rates, and user trust indicators. Emphasize the need for continuous monitoring and iteration based on data and feedback.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.